Munka, the future is probably going to be seen in TV channels making shows available on demand (iView is a great resource and other channels are following now, though they still seem to have unnecessary DRM in place). In fact, I can envisage broadband getting to the point where many people can easily utilise video and TV on demand. Once the costs of these services (i.e. subscription + cost per movie) is lower than the cost of, say, purchasing a large hard drive to download the movie to yourself, there is a clear and obvious financial incentive and no moral or criminal disincentive will be needed.

rseydler wrote:btw does anyone know why they targetted iiNet? Is it because Optus and Bigpond where just too big or because iiNet had the most infringers?

Mixture of factors I think:
* Not too large as to be able to bankroll the legal proceedings (not Optus or Bigpond) but large enough to make an example of
* Below average disincentives and control on handling copyright infringement notices, etc
* Advertised large quota plans

I suspect that if it weren't for Exetel's pro-active handling of copyright infringements, they could easily have been targeted in place of iiNet

ForumAdmin wrote:What would be the impact on Exetel users if we adopted a policy of blocking access to servers that contain copyright material offered for 'free' download?

Here's the argument YouTube uses: if they block some videos then it could be argued that the ones they miss they are giving permission for. For this reason, they will take down a video when requested, but are not going to check all videos.

Taking this to Exetel's situation - if you block pirate bay, then are you condoning torrentspy? I know you're not, but maybe in a courtroom it could be argued that you are. Would it not be pertinent to wait for the outcome of the iinet case and see whether AFACT gets a court order for piratebay to be blocked?

Also be aware that thepiratebay has a large number of linux distros, which are legally available for download. I know a lot of their stuff is illegal, but not all of it. I reckon you're causing yourself a lot of unwanted negative publicity and possibly opening yourself to bein sued under the torrent spy example above.

And what about youtube - will you block that too?

How "illegal" does a site have to be before you deem it bad enough to be null-routed?

The freedom provision effectively outlaws the basis of "Three Strikes laws" used in many jurisdictions to cut off repeat ‘offenders’ from the internet, and is the position of preference of many copyright holders.

Any measures taken by EU governments on Internet access – from fighting child pornography or other illegal activities – must allow that EU citizens are entitled to a prior fair and impartial procedure, including the right to be heard, and they have a right to an effective and timely judicial review. Just like the real world.

No secret if you read news developments Exetel has become the Film Industry's prefered ISP in Australia. And it wouldn't surprise me if a team of lawyers from that circle now regularly follow JL blog with a curious interest.

CoreyPlover wrote:I suspect that if it weren't for Exetel's pro-active handling of copyright infringements, they could easily have been targeted in place of iiNet

Exetel's system (block page) has been held up by AFACT as a model system - in court - therefore I think Exetel would easily feel reassured that they re immune to prosecution. And if AFACT tried it, a simple "but in the iiNet case you pointed at our system as a model system" would have the case thrown out in minutes, with costs awarded!

"Bannon (AFACT's barrister) then referred Malone (iiNet Chief)to Linton's blog post and directed him to read to himself large parts of it.

In the post, Linton describes how Exetel allegedly created an automated system for dealing with "emailed copyright infringement notices" using a "trivial amount of code".

Further, Linton claimed in his post "the code required to do it was available to anyone who wanted to download it under our open source policy if they truly believed it would take immense efforts and costs to write themselves."

"Have you made any enquiries as to Exetel's billing system?" Bannon asked Malone."

If AFACT had a problem with Exetel's syetem, then why would they be asking whether iiNet had contacted Exetel?

ForumAdmin wrote:
Why shouldn't Exetel 'null route' a site such as Pirate Bay which exists solely to provide copyright protected material to thieves?

In my opinion there is no reason why you shouldn't.

It had taken many years for my attitude to evolve on the matter of file sharing. I had the simple view of 'everyone use to copy and share tapes/cds/dvds, why is it so bad to share?' I have matured, I have come up with ideas, I have published a scientific paper and I have worked with clients and colleagues who have had their brilliant ideas stolen for nothing or close to nothing in return. This resulted in their personal financial loss or had made the difference in a business decision resulting in not taking on a new employee. You really are not aware of the value of intelectual property until you have had the experience in developing some.

It is very difficult to convince your family and friends who have not realised this value and that their contribution of their indiviual insignificant file sharing actions cumulates with the many other file sharers globally to create a very large significant problem. Due to my sub-standard debating skills I am yet to convince anyone close to me. I have since decided that they will never understand unless they create their own intellectual property.

File sharing of intellectual property of any sort without consent should be made as difficult as possible.

By all means, I support the 'null route' concept.

NetworkAdmin wrote: It's called 'aiding and abetting' in any other sphere.

Ravenous, wasn't your paper published so that others could share and develop your work? If the work in the paper can't be reproduced exactly by the reader, it ain't science, and shouldn't have passed review and the editor. On the occasions I have reviewed I have been savage on this point.

After a working life developing "intellectual property", I know the annoyance when someone grabs and even exploits unpublished work without the effort. Even so, the value of IP remains the value of a legalised monopoly. You will eventually just sigh and do better. Nothing for which a demand exists stays uncopied for long.

The trouble with null routing a list of web sites that purportedly lead to at least some copyright material is that it is too crude a weapon, will attract hassle, and won't achieve its aim, except for the dullest. Remember Conroy's silly list? Public sites aren't needed to file share, and P2P is a silly way to garner copyright media.

Dazzled wrote:Ravenous, wasn't your paper published so that others could share and develop your work?

Certainly. In all of its reproducable glory!

In order for others to have the pleasure to read the paper, reproduce and continue with the research they pay the publisher a fee to download/order a soft/hard copy, which pays for employees within the publisher. The others, like the business I work for, would require funding from somewhere to pay their researchers' fees and expenses, who pays taxes from that a fraction contributes to govt funding/subsidies (if you are so lucky to get it). The cycle is threatened by free sharing. Everything has a price tag. IMO i do not think music/video/software should be an exception.

Dazzled wrote:After a working life developing "intellectual property", I know the annoyance when someone grabs and even exploits unpublished work without the effort. Even so, the value of IP remains the value of a legalised monopoly. You will eventually just sigh and do better. Nothing for which a demand exists stays uncopied for long

..and then you give up. Your work gets copied (mine does alot) and unless it is word for word, code for code you can't do anything about it. Interestingly this could apply to downloaded content. Since the original didn't have blocky pictures or was of a different format or size it could be argued that the "code" (it is digital) was altered significantly enough to not be the same as the original.

Sure you can patent the idea for a length of time but eventually as stated you just sigh and speed onto the next bit of software. People still spend money and it is those people that you need to look after.

Dazzled wrote:FA, it's good that this discussion has come back to law, not morals

A life lived without morality and ethics is not a life at all.

To pretend that a commercial enterprise can be robbed with impunity because it suits an individual is the end of any reasonable society.

Copyright infringement is a CIVIL offence. You would need to engage in extremely different behaviour than the average downloader to fit the CRIMINAL level of infringement. So before climbing up on that pedestal, please stop mixing apples and oranges.

I couldn't agree more! Now if we can just get the High Court to do the same. See Gutnick v Dow Jones where defamation was likened to libel and murder across borders.

The views I present here are not necessarily those from my brain.
Exetel's support number outside Sydney: 1300 788 141 NOTE: I do not work for Exetel.